Trump's missile strike hasn't made a lot of sense as something directed at Russia or Syria, minimally damaging as it was. Or as a message worth the blowback, to placate the neocons - they'll never be satisfied until we've annihilated ourselves.

So here's another interpretation, from Ilargi:

https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/04/symbols-of-strength/

There’s another element in all this that deserves more scrutiny. Sort of linked to the Putin-Assad connection. That is, why was the attack launched at the very moment that Xi Jinping was sitting down for dinner at Mar-a-Lago? Trump had reason to show the world that he’s willing to use his strength. You can question the whole thing, but it makes sense, from a military point of view, in more than one way.

And the biggest threat to the US, and perhaps the world, is not Assad. It’s North Korea. The US had to tell China that its protégé is getting out of hand. That has been going on for a while of course, but Kim fired a bunch of rockets recently, and one of these days that could lead to a -nuclear?- ‘accident’. Countries like South Korea and Japan are getting very nervous, and the US has vowed to protect them. As Xi is well aware.

Who was the "message" primarily aimed at?

So the symbolism here may be directed, in a pretty direct way, at Xi Jinping. Get your boy under control or we soon will have no choice but to do it for you. And we don’t want to do that, because you will lose face if we do, and if that happens the two of us may get into a conflict, on opposite sides. Which neither of us should want. It would be bad for business. And while you’re here to discuss business, let’s get this out of the way first.

Actually pretty slick, if saving face for Xi was a concern in this. Another look at this, discussing signaling as opposed to communication, is at:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-10/medias-missing-point-syria-empi...

It seems many media observers are confused by events in Syria and the swirl of competing narratives. Did the Swamp drain Trump? Did the Neocons succeed in forcing Trump to follow their lead? Is the U.S. ramping up yet another endless war?

Consider the possibility that none of these narratives actually get to the heart of what's going on. To make sense of all this, we're going to have to delve into topics far below today's headlines.

Hugh-Smith thinks that the strike was minimally about Syria (in line with its minimal damage), and mainly about telling Xi that he was willing to use force.

In other words, the perception of power and the willingness and ability to apply force is what matters in terms of political influence. If we look through this lens, we discern a much different picture of what may be going on with the cruise missile attack on Syria.

Of course, now Trump has to deal with Putin's anger - unless Putin also read it this way and is responding in equivalent signaling terms.

What do you think?